Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the PDF checker runs in the browser and no file is ever sent to the server, which matters for an agent handling client files.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the checker link and privacy note. Slightly dense with parenthetical examples, but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the work of indicating the return shape: a list of checkpoints plus a link to the browser-based verifier. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the 'produit' value domain remains unclear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter, 'produit', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only echoes it as 'pour un produit donné'. It adds no information about accepted values, format, or whether product names must match another tool's vocabulary, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (checkpoints to verify in a print file) and scopes it to a given product, listing concrete examples (fond perdu, résolution, couleurs, polices). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with finding printers, techniques, and quotes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the moment of use explicitly: 'avant de le confier à un imprimeur'. That gives a clear context, but it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.